How would losing that particular species of gorilla effect the ecosystem? Chances are, if that was the last female, it would be in captivity anyway. Objectively, you take that shot 100 out of 100 times.
Never mind. If you refuse to acknowledge the intrinsic and ecological value of an animal species, there is no point in discussing it any further.
Absolutely not true. If the animal is in captivity anyway, how is the value of the ecosystem diminished? That's not a question that should be asked?
The death of the one animal wouldn't have a sudden impact. The lack of that species in nature would be. And it's hypothetical remember. We all know that viable gene pools etc etc need to be taken into account, but that's not important in this discussion. The philosophy of it is the issue.
Yes it's hypothetical and yes I'm being objective. Does every species hold equal value to an ecosystem?
No. Humans are a destructive parasite, so I would argue that humans have much less value, if any at all.
I'd say the higher up the food chain you go, the less value a species holds.
I didn't see answer to the question of what if it was your child? Could you hold such objectivity? Obviously not, but could you accept the death of your child to save that species?
No, as I said, once it's a person's own child all bets are usually off.... not always though. Ask, say, Jane Goodall if she would sacrifice her own child to save the species... I think she'd at the very least struggle eternally with that question. Either that, or immediately say yes. It's not like no parent in the history of the world never sacrificed their kid.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Question: same situation but the gorilla is the last known female in the world. Do you still take the shot?
My answer would be no. I'm sure the kid's parents would disagree, but yeah, I do place the very existence of gorillas to outweigh the life of one child. Sorry kid.
That is complete insanity to me.
it's nowhere close to being insanity if you apply some objectivity ... do we understand the concept of biodiversity and ecosystems? ... do we understand what it means when we lose species on this planet? ...
in any case - to those who are flabbergasted at the notion of sacrificing one child to save the last gorilla understand that the way we live our lives in north america condemn children around the world to death and suffering? ... that we, on a daily basis, make decisions that will impact children around the world without blinking an eye?
Well I should have maybe put italics or something around "to me" to stress that I'm speaking from my point-of-view....which is that the specific species of gorillas is useless to me. I'm sure there's a lot of species out there that, unbeknownst to me, affect my way of living and the world around me. But gorillas aren't one of them.
That is some serious self-involvement. If it doesn't affect you directly and relatively immediately you don't care. Okay then. Now i understand where you are coming from.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
That is some serious self-involvement. If it doesn't affect you directly and relatively immediately you don't care. Okay then. Now i understand where you are coming from.
As far as animals go...yes. And if a species is down to one remaining female, it's nearly extinct anyway. And probably would be if not for humans interfering
as expected, i see no one wanted to tackle my point about how we let children die daily because of the choices we make ... it's funny how so many people find it incredulous that the survival of a species can be deemed more important than the life of one single child ...
as expected, i see no one wanted to tackle my point about how we let children die daily because of the choices we make ... it's funny how so many people find it incredulous that the survival of a species can be deemed more important than the life of one single child ...
I think we let children die daily because of the mistakes we make. And I'm just not on your side of the fence with the whole "survival of a species" thing. Species go extinct. That's evolution...baby. If there was one female of a species left on earth. And humans transported that female to where there is a male so they could procreate, wouldn't that be an example of humans interfering with nature?
devil's advocate: EVERY species, if they were put in a position to choose their own or another, would choose their own EVERY SINGLE TIME. a gorilla wouldn't give a second thought to snapping the last human female in half if one of their babies was in danger.
Sure, on a personal level this is 100% true. All animals, including humans, protect their own children. But not on a species level. Anyway, I am VERY comfortable saying that a human life is worth saving an entire species (and many people do indeed put their OWN lives at risk to do exactly that. This is not a crazy new concept I'm talking about here). I think to say that a human life is more important than a whole species of animal is VERY selfish and humanly arrogant.
I think it's important to note the differences here in what people are saying. as I said earlier, objectively, no one human life is more important than an entire species of ape. my own child however, obviously, I'd be put to death for. I'd put the hands of that gorilla around my throat with my own hands to save my daughters.
I don't know if everyone here is saying the former. I'm hoping they are speaking from the viewpoint of the latter. If not, well, I'm with you and I'm not sure what to say.
How would losing that particular species of gorilla effect the ecosystem? Chances are, if that was the last female, it would be in captivity anyway. Objectively, you take that shot 100 out of 100 times.
Never mind. If you refuse to acknowledge the intrinsic and ecological value of an animal species, there is no point in discussing it any further.
Absolutely not true. If the animal is in captivity anyway, how is the value of the ecosystem diminished? That's not a question that should be asked?
The death of the one animal wouldn't have a sudden impact. The lack of that species in nature would be. And it's hypothetical remember. We all know that viable gene pools etc etc need to be taken into account, but that's not important in this discussion. The philosophy of it is the issue.
Yes it's hypothetical and yes I'm being objective. Does every species hold equal value to an ecosystem?
No. Humans are a destructive parasite, so I would argue that humans have much less value, if any at all.
I'd say the higher up the food chain you go, the less value a species holds.
I didn't see answer to the question of what if it was your child? Could you hold such objectivity? Obviously not, but could you accept the death of your child to save that species?
No, as I said, once it's a person's own child all bets are usually off.... not always though. Ask, say, Jane Goodall if she would sacrifice her own child to save the species... I think she'd at the very least struggle eternally with that question. Either that, or immediately say yes. It's not like no parent in the history of the world never sacrificed their kid.
I think it would destroy her emotionally to have to make that decision, but in my opinion she'd make it in favour of her own kid 100 times out of 100, even if it was an entire species of ape. if it was to save all of humanity, maybe that would be different. maybe that would be different for all of us, who knows.
Come on HFD A spade is a spade. There are people here that literally believe the species before human thing and when called on it they disappear for awhile.
Come on HFD A spade is a spade. There are people here that literally believe the species before human thing and when called on it they disappear for awhile.
no, all I've seen so far is people speaking both objectively and subjectively. there is a distinction. I have not seen anyone (seriously-not hyperbole) saying that they should have let the ape have its way with the child.
Come on HFD A spade is a spade. There are people here that literally believe the species before human thing and when called on it they disappear for awhile.
no, all I've seen so far is people speaking both objectively and subjectively. there is a distinction. I have not seen anyone (seriously-not hyperbole) saying that they should have let the ape have its way with the child.
Speaking objectively, if it was the last female on earth, the species will be extinct in short time anyway. So why let a child be killed?
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
as expected, i see no one wanted to tackle my point about how we let children die daily because of the choices we make ... it's funny how so many people find it incredulous that the survival of a species can be deemed more important than the life of one single child ...
I think we let children die daily because of the mistakes we make. And I'm just not on your side of the fence with the whole "survival of a species" thing. Species go extinct. That's evolution...baby. If there was one female of a species left on earth. And humans transported that female to where there is a male so they could procreate, wouldn't that be an example of humans interfering with nature?
i thought we've moved past the legitimacy of the question ... the question, as it was perceived to me, is about the value of maintaining a species vs. the life of one child ... the semantics of the hypothetical were ignored ... obviously, if there is only one female left - the species is essentially extinct unless some males become females ... which i guess only happens in fish maybe ... in any case - my position is in the value of not allowing species to go extinct vs. the life of a child ...
do you understand the concepts of biodiversity? how ecosystems work? and/or tipping points? ... this is not meant to be facetious but simply a question to determine if you understand what it means for species to go extinct and it's consequences to everything else ... also, gorillas are endangered in this world because of one singular entity ... humans ... that's not evolution ...
lastly, we let children die because of our selfish choices and our ignorance ... it's not just mistakes ... it's about continuing to live in a world where it is acceptable to exploit childhood labour and kid soldiers ... it's easy to disassociate ourselves from that but the truth is that by supporting the global economy particularly here in north america as we do - we affect the lives of many children around the world ...
as expected, i see no one wanted to tackle my point about how we let children die daily because of the choices we make ... it's funny how so many people find it incredulous that the survival of a species can be deemed more important than the life of one single child ...
I think we let children die daily because of the mistakes we make. And I'm just not on your side of the fence with the whole "survival of a species" thing. Species go extinct. That's evolution...baby. If there was one female of a species left on earth. And humans transported that female to where there is a male so they could procreate, wouldn't that be an example of humans interfering with nature?
i thought we've moved past the legitimacy of the question ... the question, as it was perceived to me, is about the value of maintaining a species vs. the life of one child ... the semantics of the hypothetical were ignored ... obviously, if there is only one female left - the species is essentially extinct unless some males become females ... which i guess only happens in fish maybe ... in any case - my position is in the value of not allowing species to go extinct vs. the life of a child ...
do you understand the concepts of biodiversity? how ecosystems work? and/or tipping points? ... this is not meant to be facetious but simply a question to determine if you understand what it means for species to go extinct and it's consequences to everything else ... also, gorillas are endangered in this world because of one singular entity ... humans ... that's not evolution ...
lastly, we let children die because of our selfish choices and our ignorance ... it's not just mistakes ... it's about continuing to live in a world where it is acceptable to exploit childhood labour and kid soldiers ... it's easy to disassociate ourselves from that but the truth is that by supporting the global economy particularly here in north america as we do - we affect the lives of many children around the world ...
I don't understand why you're discounting humans as part of the natural selection process.
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
as expected, i see no one wanted to tackle my point about how we let children die daily because of the choices we make ... it's funny how so many people find it incredulous that the survival of a species can be deemed more important than the life of one single child ...
I think we let children die daily because of the mistakes we make. And I'm just not on your side of the fence with the whole "survival of a species" thing. Species go extinct. That's evolution...baby. If there was one female of a species left on earth. And humans transported that female to where there is a male so they could procreate, wouldn't that be an example of humans interfering with nature?
i thought we've moved past the legitimacy of the question ... the question, as it was perceived to me, is about the value of maintaining a species vs. the life of one child ... the semantics of the hypothetical were ignored ... obviously, if there is only one female left - the species is essentially extinct unless some males become females ... which i guess only happens in fish maybe ... in any case - my position is in the value of not allowing species to go extinct vs. the life of a child ...
do you understand the concepts of biodiversity? how ecosystems work? and/or tipping points? ... this is not meant to be facetious but simply a question to determine if you understand what it means for species to go extinct and it's consequences to everything else ... also, gorillas are endangered in this world because of one singular entity ... humans ... that's not evolution ...
lastly, we let children die because of our selfish choices and our ignorance ... it's not just mistakes ... it's about continuing to live in a world where it is acceptable to exploit childhood labour and kid soldiers ... it's easy to disassociate ourselves from that but the truth is that by supporting the global economy particularly here in north america as we do - we affect the lives of many children around the world ...
i can only laugh at this... good grief. I need granola bar.
Come on HFD A spade is a spade. There are people here that literally believe the species before human thing and when called on it they disappear for awhile.
no, all I've seen so far is people speaking both objectively and subjectively. there is a distinction. I have not seen anyone (seriously-not hyperbole) saying that they should have let the ape have its way with the child.
Speaking objectively, if it was the last female on earth, the species will be extinct in short time anyway. So why let a child be killed?
that's not a certainty, though.
honestly, if it were me to make the call, if it were human child vs last female ape, I'd take that shot 100% of the time. because, as a species, we DO (rightly or wrongly, I'm not making a case for that) put our own species ahead of all others (and no, I'm not talking about cutting down forests for our own economic interests, I'm talking on a basic survival level). that's instinct. most or all species have that same instinct.
as expected, i see no one wanted to tackle my point about how we let children die daily because of the choices we make ... it's funny how so many people find it incredulous that the survival of a species can be deemed more important than the life of one single child ...
I think we let children die daily because of the mistakes we make. And I'm just not on your side of the fence with the whole "survival of a species" thing. Species go extinct. That's evolution...baby. If there was one female of a species left on earth. And humans transported that female to where there is a male so they could procreate, wouldn't that be an example of humans interfering with nature?
i thought we've moved past the legitimacy of the question ... the question, as it was perceived to me, is about the value of maintaining a species vs. the life of one child ... the semantics of the hypothetical were ignored ... obviously, if there is only one female left - the species is essentially extinct unless some males become females ... which i guess only happens in fish maybe ... in any case - my position is in the value of not allowing species to go extinct vs. the life of a child ...
do you understand the concepts of biodiversity? how ecosystems work? and/or tipping points? ... this is not meant to be facetious but simply a question to determine if you understand what it means for species to go extinct and it's consequences to everything else ... also, gorillas are endangered in this world because of one singular entity ... humans ... that's not evolution ...
lastly, we let children die because of our selfish choices and our ignorance ... it's not just mistakes ... it's about continuing to live in a world where it is acceptable to exploit childhood labour and kid soldiers ... it's easy to disassociate ourselves from that but the truth is that by supporting the global economy particularly here in north america as we do - we affect the lives of many children around the world ...
I just don't see how Gorillas in particular are vital to any ecosystems on this planet here in the year 2016. I just don't see it. Maybe I'm blind to Gorilla importance. And if I am...oh well.
as expected, i see no one wanted to tackle my point about how we let children die daily because of the choices we make ... it's funny how so many people find it incredulous that the survival of a species can be deemed more important than the life of one single child ...
I think we let children die daily because of the mistakes we make. And I'm just not on your side of the fence with the whole "survival of a species" thing. Species go extinct. That's evolution...baby. If there was one female of a species left on earth. And humans transported that female to where there is a male so they could procreate, wouldn't that be an example of humans interfering with nature?
i thought we've moved past the legitimacy of the question ... the question, as it was perceived to me, is about the value of maintaining a species vs. the life of one child ... the semantics of the hypothetical were ignored ... obviously, if there is only one female left - the species is essentially extinct unless some males become females ... which i guess only happens in fish maybe ... in any case - my position is in the value of not allowing species to go extinct vs. the life of a child ...
do you understand the concepts of biodiversity? how ecosystems work? and/or tipping points? ... this is not meant to be facetious but simply a question to determine if you understand what it means for species to go extinct and it's consequences to everything else ... also, gorillas are endangered in this world because of one singular entity ... humans ... that's not evolution ...
lastly, we let children die because of our selfish choices and our ignorance ... it's not just mistakes ... it's about continuing to live in a world where it is acceptable to exploit childhood labour and kid soldiers ... it's easy to disassociate ourselves from that but the truth is that by supporting the global economy particularly here in north america as we do - we affect the lives of many children around the world ...
I just don't see how Gorillas in particular are vital to any ecosystems on this planet here in the year 2016. I just don't see it. Maybe I'm blind to Gorilla importance. And if I am...oh well.
as expected, i see no one wanted to tackle my point about how we let children die daily because of the choices we make ... it's funny how so many people find it incredulous that the survival of a species can be deemed more important than the life of one single child ...
I think we let children die daily because of the mistakes we make. And I'm just not on your side of the fence with the whole "survival of a species" thing. Species go extinct. That's evolution...baby. If there was one female of a species left on earth. And humans transported that female to where there is a male so they could procreate, wouldn't that be an example of humans interfering with nature?
i thought we've moved past the legitimacy of the question ... the question, as it was perceived to me, is about the value of maintaining a species vs. the life of one child ... the semantics of the hypothetical were ignored ... obviously, if there is only one female left - the species is essentially extinct unless some males become females ... which i guess only happens in fish maybe ... in any case - my position is in the value of not allowing species to go extinct vs. the life of a child ...
do you understand the concepts of biodiversity? how ecosystems work? and/or tipping points? ... this is not meant to be facetious but simply a question to determine if you understand what it means for species to go extinct and it's consequences to everything else ... also, gorillas are endangered in this world because of one singular entity ... humans ... that's not evolution ...
lastly, we let children die because of our selfish choices and our ignorance ... it's not just mistakes ... it's about continuing to live in a world where it is acceptable to exploit childhood labour and kid soldiers ... it's easy to disassociate ourselves from that but the truth is that by supporting the global economy particularly here in north america as we do - we affect the lives of many children around the world ...
I just don't see how Gorillas in particular are vital to any ecosystems on this planet here in the year 2016. I just don't see it. Maybe I'm blind to Gorilla importance. And if I am...oh well.
you're are not selfish and ignorant because you aren't concerned with gorillas. even if the radical liberals say so.
devil's advocate: EVERY species, if they were put in a position to choose their own or another, would choose their own EVERY SINGLE TIME. a gorilla wouldn't give a second thought to snapping the last human female in half if one of their babies was in danger.
You're right ... The big difference is that kids mama was probably too hysterical to do anything, but reverse that role with the ape or most other animals and they immediately would jump into action and rescue their young.
This is a mouthful.
It's true. Outside of crocodiles, are there other animals outside of humans that will kill their own offspring?
(Mom never sounded too hysterical... I'm not sure what the most accurate descriptor would be?)
That are tons of animals that kill their own young actually. I personally once saw a cat eat the head off of her own kitten. Other species will happily fight to the death with their own offspring once they are adults and a threat to their position in a heard or pride or whatever. Others will simply reject their young for various reasons and abandon them soon after birth. This is fairly common among animals. So yeah, animals usually protect their own kids to the death, and humans are particularly protective of their own offspring (NOT of other people's offspring).
I don't trust cats ... Too sneaky, now I know why.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
as expected, i see no one wanted to tackle my point about how we let children die daily because of the choices we make ... it's funny how so many people find it incredulous that the survival of a species can be deemed more important than the life of one single child ...
I agree with you Polaris ... Are you talking economic choices? Do you have a solution?
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
as expected, i see no one wanted to tackle my point about how we let children die daily because of the choices we make ... it's funny how so many people find it incredulous that the survival of a species can be deemed more important than the life of one single child ...
I think we let children die daily because of the mistakes we make. And I'm just not on your side of the fence with the whole "survival of a species" thing. Species go extinct. That's evolution...baby. If there was one female of a species left on earth. And humans transported that female to where there is a male so they could procreate, wouldn't that be an example of humans interfering with nature?
i thought we've moved past the legitimacy of the question ... the question, as it was perceived to me, is about the value of maintaining a species vs. the life of one child ... the semantics of the hypothetical were ignored ... obviously, if there is only one female left - the species is essentially extinct unless some males become females ... which i guess only happens in fish maybe ... in any case - my position is in the value of not allowing species to go extinct vs. the life of a child ...
do you understand the concepts of biodiversity? how ecosystems work? and/or tipping points? ... this is not meant to be facetious but simply a question to determine if you understand what it means for species to go extinct and it's consequences to everything else ... also, gorillas are endangered in this world because of one singular entity ... humans ... that's not evolution ...
lastly, we let children die because of our selfish choices and our ignorance ... it's not just mistakes ... it's about continuing to live in a world where it is acceptable to exploit childhood labour and kid soldiers ... it's easy to disassociate ourselves from that but the truth is that by supporting the global economy particularly here in north america as we do - we affect the lives of many children around the world ...
I just don't see how Gorillas in particular are vital to any ecosystems on this planet here in the year 2016. I just don't see it. Maybe I'm blind to Gorilla importance. And if I am...oh well.
you're are not selfish and ignorant because you aren't concerned with gorillas. even if the radical liberals say so.
not sure why the need for constant name calling/labelling. no one here is a radical liberal. not even close.
devil's advocate: EVERY species, if they were put in a position to choose their own or another, would choose their own EVERY SINGLE TIME. a gorilla wouldn't give a second thought to snapping the last human female in half if one of their babies was in danger.
You're right ... The big difference is that kids mama was probably too hysterical to do anything, but reverse that role with the ape or most other animals and they immediately would jump into action and rescue their young.
This is a mouthful.
It's true. Outside of crocodiles, are there other animals outside of humans that will kill their own offspring?
(Mom never sounded too hysterical... I'm not sure what the most accurate descriptor would be?)
That are tons of animals that kill their own young actually. I personally once saw a cat eat the head off of her own kitten. Other species will happily fight to the death with their own offspring once they are adults and a threat to their position in a heard or pride or whatever. Others will simply reject their young for various reasons and abandon them soon after birth. This is fairly common among animals. So yeah, animals usually protect their own kids to the death, and humans are particularly protective of their own offspring (NOT of other people's offspring).
I don't trust cats ... Too sneaky, now I know why.
I love big cats. Tigers especially. But yup... they're predators through and through.
as expected, i see no one wanted to tackle my point about how we let children die daily because of the choices we make ... it's funny how so many people find it incredulous that the survival of a species can be deemed more important than the life of one single child ...
I think we let children die daily because of the mistakes we make. And I'm just not on your side of the fence with the whole "survival of a species" thing. Species go extinct. That's evolution...baby. If there was one female of a species left on earth. And humans transported that female to where there is a male so they could procreate, wouldn't that be an example of humans interfering with nature?
i thought we've moved past the legitimacy of the question ... the question, as it was perceived to me, is about the value of maintaining a species vs. the life of one child ... the semantics of the hypothetical were ignored ... obviously, if there is only one female left - the species is essentially extinct unless some males become females ... which i guess only happens in fish maybe ... in any case - my position is in the value of not allowing species to go extinct vs. the life of a child ...
do you understand the concepts of biodiversity? how ecosystems work? and/or tipping points? ... this is not meant to be facetious but simply a question to determine if you understand what it means for species to go extinct and it's consequences to everything else ... also, gorillas are endangered in this world because of one singular entity ... humans ... that's not evolution ...
lastly, we let children die because of our selfish choices and our ignorance ... it's not just mistakes ... it's about continuing to live in a world where it is acceptable to exploit childhood labour and kid soldiers ... it's easy to disassociate ourselves from that but the truth is that by supporting the global economy particularly here in north america as we do - we affect the lives of many children around the world ...
I don't understand why you're discounting humans as part of the natural selection process.
because it allows lazy people to simply say that everything is part of the evolutionary cycle ... that there is no accountability in our actions as humans and that everything we do good or bad is all part of something that is inevitable ...
we aren't killing off habitat and species because we need to survive ... we are doing it because we are greedy, selfish and stupid ...
as expected, i see no one wanted to tackle my point about how we let children die daily because of the choices we make ... it's funny how so many people find it incredulous that the survival of a species can be deemed more important than the life of one single child ...
I think we let children die daily because of the mistakes we make. And I'm just not on your side of the fence with the whole "survival of a species" thing. Species go extinct. That's evolution...baby. If there was one female of a species left on earth. And humans transported that female to where there is a male so they could procreate, wouldn't that be an example of humans interfering with nature?
i thought we've moved past the legitimacy of the question ... the question, as it was perceived to me, is about the value of maintaining a species vs. the life of one child ... the semantics of the hypothetical were ignored ... obviously, if there is only one female left - the species is essentially extinct unless some males become females ... which i guess only happens in fish maybe ... in any case - my position is in the value of not allowing species to go extinct vs. the life of a child ...
do you understand the concepts of biodiversity? how ecosystems work? and/or tipping points? ... this is not meant to be facetious but simply a question to determine if you understand what it means for species to go extinct and it's consequences to everything else ... also, gorillas are endangered in this world because of one singular entity ... humans ... that's not evolution ...
lastly, we let children die because of our selfish choices and our ignorance ... it's not just mistakes ... it's about continuing to live in a world where it is acceptable to exploit childhood labour and kid soldiers ... it's easy to disassociate ourselves from that but the truth is that by supporting the global economy particularly here in north america as we do - we affect the lives of many children around the world ...
I just don't see how Gorillas in particular are vital to any ecosystems on this planet here in the year 2016. I just don't see it. Maybe I'm blind to Gorilla importance. And if I am...oh well.
well ... can you answer my questions on your knowledge of ecosystems and biodiversity? ... sure, there are few organisms that life couldn't live without ... the issue here is that if gorillas are expendable ... what else is? ... and at what point do we lose enough species that results in an ecological collapse?
as expected, i see no one wanted to tackle my point about how we let children die daily because of the choices we make ... it's funny how so many people find it incredulous that the survival of a species can be deemed more important than the life of one single child ...
I think we let children die daily because of the mistakes we make. And I'm just not on your side of the fence with the whole "survival of a species" thing. Species go extinct. That's evolution...baby. If there was one female of a species left on earth. And humans transported that female to where there is a male so they could procreate, wouldn't that be an example of humans interfering with nature?
i thought we've moved past the legitimacy of the question ... the question, as it was perceived to me, is about the value of maintaining a species vs. the life of one child ... the semantics of the hypothetical were ignored ... obviously, if there is only one female left - the species is essentially extinct unless some males become females ... which i guess only happens in fish maybe ... in any case - my position is in the value of not allowing species to go extinct vs. the life of a child ...
do you understand the concepts of biodiversity? how ecosystems work? and/or tipping points? ... this is not meant to be facetious but simply a question to determine if you understand what it means for species to go extinct and it's consequences to everything else ... also, gorillas are endangered in this world because of one singular entity ... humans ... that's not evolution ...
lastly, we let children die because of our selfish choices and our ignorance ... it's not just mistakes ... it's about continuing to live in a world where it is acceptable to exploit childhood labour and kid soldiers ... it's easy to disassociate ourselves from that but the truth is that by supporting the global economy particularly here in north america as we do - we affect the lives of many children around the world ...
I just don't see how Gorillas in particular are vital to any ecosystems on this planet here in the year 2016. I just don't see it. Maybe I'm blind to Gorilla importance. And if I am...oh well.
Especially gorillas in captivity.
again ... the hypothetical makes no sense at all ... the response is based on the philosophical nature of the question ... is the preservation of gorillas as a species more important than the life of one child ... that's what I'm answering ...
Comments
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Some sense talk.
Can't wait to hear why you're wrong to some people around here.
(I'm thinking something like this is coming at you)
I don't know if everyone here is saying the former. I'm hoping they are speaking from the viewpoint of the latter. If not, well, I'm with you and I'm not sure what to say.
www.headstonesband.com
*and no, I'm not claiming to know her personally*
www.headstonesband.com
A spade is a spade. There are people here that literally believe the species before human thing and when called on it they disappear for awhile.
www.headstonesband.com
we will find a way, we will find our place
do you understand the concepts of biodiversity? how ecosystems work? and/or tipping points? ... this is not meant to be facetious but simply a question to determine if you understand what it means for species to go extinct and it's consequences to everything else ... also, gorillas are endangered in this world because of one singular entity ... humans ... that's not evolution ...
lastly, we let children die because of our selfish choices and our ignorance ... it's not just mistakes ... it's about continuing to live in a world where it is acceptable to exploit childhood labour and kid soldiers ... it's easy to disassociate ourselves from that but the truth is that by supporting the global economy particularly here in north america as we do - we affect the lives of many children around the world ...
we will find a way, we will find our place
honestly, if it were me to make the call, if it were human child vs last female ape, I'd take that shot 100% of the time. because, as a species, we DO (rightly or wrongly, I'm not making a case for that) put our own species ahead of all others (and no, I'm not talking about cutting down forests for our own economic interests, I'm talking on a basic survival level). that's instinct. most or all species have that same instinct.
www.headstonesband.com
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
www.headstonesband.com
we aren't killing off habitat and species because we need to survive ... we are doing it because we are greedy, selfish and stupid ...